Page 141 - Libro Max Cetto

Cristina López Uribe and Salvador Lizárraga Sánchez

capable of encompassing that aesthetic delirium known as the Gothic. For the history of
traditional art, Gothic architecture was full of excesses of form, light and construction -that
is, it was grotesque. The theory of abstraction and empathy (in addition to Alöis Rieglʼs
Kunstwollen) distanced artistic manifestations other than the Greco-Roman from an al-
leged savagery or barbarism. As Worringer would write, “All valuations from our point of
view, from our modern aesthetic [Orthodox classicist] –which make their judgments exclu-
sively in the sense of classical antiquity or the Renaissance– are, to apply a higher criterion,
52
absurd and trivial.” Of course, this has nationalistic and political implications that go far
beyond the artistic, but which, in this small space, it is not possible to explore further.
German art theory provided Max Cetto with a strong theoretical framework for ana-
lyzing Mesoamerican and colonial architecture in his adopted country and for criticizing
ways of looking at it in his time. Cetto questioned the myth –influential to this day– that
pre-Hispanic pyramids and buildings merged with nature because they were made with
a local material: stone. The problem is that all the archaeological evidence indicates that
these buildings were plastered and painted white over most of their surface, accompanied
by some color. An architect who really wanted to relate his architecture to that of some
pre-Hispanic culture would not build buildings with visible materials: he would cover them
and paint them. An architect who knew their history, of course. These German and Aus-
trian interpretive models brought to bear on Mexican architecture allow specific criticisms
throughout the text that force the reader to question the discipline’s clichés.

The text contained in the photographic catalog is divided into sections based on patterns
of use: churches, schools, offices, etc. The different sections of the book come one after the
other without titles or divisions and each project has its own technical description, pre-
sented in a much more organized fashion than in Myers’ book. Cetto intelligently inter-
spersed critical comments throughout the descriptions, making it much more enjoyable to
read, even provoking laughter. One of these, which sparked a wide-ranging discussion with
the editor Wolfgang Pehnt, was on the Torre Latinoamericana, which the author criticized
53
using a Kierkegaard quote on boredom. Upon reading this quote, Pehnt wrote that it
might be counterproductive, but Cetto successfully insisted that it remain in the publica-
54
tion. This event illustrates the architect’s tenacity. These are his reasons for not removing it:
Here I find the need to resolutely contradict you, namely:
1.- Because, from time to time, it is necessary to give a sigh of relief from the meticulousness
and brutal severity of the matter.
2.- Because what I want to express here is not at all factual but philosophical in nature, that is,
urbanistic and aesthetic arguments, even if they are correct, are out of place.
3.- Because Kierkegaard says it more strikingly than you or I ever could and, additionally,
manages to hide his scathing cultural critique under a smile, so that its depth only comes to be
revealed after a time and, therefore, perhaps more persistently.
4.- And above all, because such a damning critique of my local friends (and especially my
enemies) can only be swallowed if it does not appear as a personal observation of mine, but one
that is served in. 55

52 Paul Westheim, Arte antiguo de México, 109.
53 Max Cetto, Modern Architecture in Mexico, 144.
54 Pehnt was concerned that the quotation, taken away from its original context, would lend itself to criticism as being
applied artificially to this case, so he strongly insisted on a reformulation. See letter from Hatje to Cetto, September 28,
1959, and letter from Cetto to Hatje, October 6, 1959 (AMCC).
55 Letter from Cetto to Hatje, July 20, 1959.

141